anyway, the huge optical gap between the now ( bf3/crysis 3 ) and the shown "next gen" (ps4 tech demos / unreal 4 tech demo) is absolutely massive. it is hard to believe, that this will come tu us @ home in about 12 months.

what i believe is, they gain a huge optical boost on the new console hardware, with tweaks and tricks to come close to the things shown. on the pc we will see lousy ports because of the lack of will, time and money to do it proper. so they sell more console hw, the pc will be left behind again and all the next gen grafix bloom will only be a smokebomb from the marketing machinery.

anyway, the huge optical gap between the now ( bf3/crysis 3 ) and the shown "next gen" (ps4 tech demos / unreal 4 tech demo) is absolutely massive. it is hard to believe, that this will come tu us @ home in about 12 months.

what i believe is, they gain a huge optical boost on the new console hardware, with tweaks and tricks to come close to the things shown. on the pc we will see lousy ports because of the lack of will, time and money to do it proper. so they sell more console hw, the pc will be left behind again and all the next gen grafix bloom will only be a smokebomb from the marketing machinery.

It was shown on a single GTX680. And why would we see lousy ports? The PS4 is and the 720 is rumored to both have PC hardware. It's not even a port anymore.

Its all well and good having flashy graphics but what I want is proper optimizations. Better performance as well as better graphics. They push as many particles and textures as they want to unless we actually have hardware they can run it properly WITH a power hungry OS in the background then I shall be happy.

Also, video of tech demos are never one to go by, as its been recorded to a video file and that video file will be, compressed, capped at 24fps or 30fps, and this may not even be the demo running in full detail... They could of turned stuff down to maintain a fluid frame rate.

What I want to see is a real time demo, record on a camera someone actually playing the demo or the demo actually running on a PC with current hardware with all the bells and whistles turned on and show us what frame rates it gets. Its that simple, if they showed us that I would be impressed

It was shown on a single GTX680. And why would we see lousy ports? The PS4 is and the 720 is rumored to both have PC hardware. It's not even a port anymore.

Hmmm, yes and no. Comparing PS4, Xbox Next, and PC (Windows) would be like comparing Linux and Windows, and saying that a program moved over from Linux to Windows isn't ported. Same hardware, but same issues as with console ports (potentially buggy and slow).

If any thing, if the porting is more simple it will mean less likelihood of better graphics on PC. Games ported from Xbox Next would be the Directx based games, and games from PS4 the OpenGL games. It means we probably won't get much extra graphical stuff added to Xbox Next and PS4 Ports, and they'll probably do the same old trick of directly porting the textures, or upsampling the textures. I highly doubt they'd do things properly and make textures for PC that they downsample, noooo, that makes too much sense!

It was shown on a single GTX680. And why would we see lousy ports? The PS4 is and the 720 is rumored to both have PC hardware. It's not even a port anymore.

Because this thing ran on a system with a GTX 680 (which is far stronger than the GPU in the PS4), an i7 (which is another world away from the pathetic CPU in the PS4) and 16GB of RAM + 4GB (safe to assume) on the GTX680; not to mention probably an SSD, etc.

Because this thing ran on a system with a GTX 680 (which is far stronger than the GPU in the PS4), an i7 (which is another world away from the pathetic CPU in the PS4) and 16GB of RAM + 4GB (safe to assume) on the GTX680; not to mention probably an SSD, etc.

Hmmm, yes and no. Comparing PS4, Xbox Next, and PC (Windows) would be like comparing Linux and Windows, and saying that a program moved over from Linux to Windows isn't ported. Same hardware, but same issues as with console ports (potentially buggy and slow).

If any thing, if the porting is more simple it will mean less likelihood of better graphics on PC. Games ported from Xbox Next would be the Directx based games, and games from PS4 the OpenGL games. It means we probably won't get much extra graphical stuff added to Xbox Next and PS4 Ports, and they'll probably do the same old trick of directly porting the textures, or upsampling the textures. I highly doubt they'd do things properly and make textures for PC that they downsample, noooo, that makes too much sense!

Linux to Windows ports are only an issue when you're going from Direct3D to OpenGL. ID has no problems porting all it's OpenGL games to Linux with excellent performance. Further, the 720 will presumably use Direct3D for it's console development. If it indeed uses x86 hardware and standard GPU architecture it will literally be a PC. Microsoft development tools are the best afaic and that will mean we will see excellent ports.

Also I disagree with you're last paragraph entirely. What reason was there before hand to put better graphics into the game? Regardless it costs money and that's all that matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chillin

Because this thing ran on a system with a GTX 680 (which is far stronger than the GPU in the PS4), an i7 (which is another world away from the pathetic CPU in the PS4) and 16GB of RAM + 4GB (safe to assume) on the GTX680; not to mention probably an SSD, etc.

Good luck with that.

It's 2.5TF vs 1.84TF. 25%. The CPU is irrelevant in consoles for the most part as the rendering pipeline is highly optimized for the hardware and there are no background tasks or other items eating CPU cycles.

The amount of ram is whatever for games as all textures that are being rendered are stored on the GPU. PS4 GPU has access to probably 6GB (I figured at least 2 will be used by other stuff) vs 4GB on the 680 (I think far more users have the 2GB version).

Plus you have no clue what the framerate is of the demo, for all you know it's running at 100FPS scaled down and you still get 75fps which is more than playable, especially since most console gamers are used to like 30fps.

next gen for pc's sure, next gen for consoles, doubt full we still have yet to see the visuals that where initial show for Killzone 2 on current consoles cause there was night and day difference between what was initial shown there and what we actual got when the game came out.

Linux to Windows ports are only an issue when you're going from Direct3D to OpenGL. ID has no problems porting all it's OpenGL games to Linux with excellent performance. Further, the 720 will presumably use Direct3D for it's console development. If it indeed uses x86 hardware and standard GPU architecture it will literally be a PC. Microsoft development tools are the best afaic and that will mean we will see excellent ports.

Also I disagree with you're last paragraph entirely. What reason was there before hand to put better graphics into the game? Regardless it costs money and that's all that matters.

It's 2.5TF vs 1.84TF. 25%. The CPU is irrelevant in consoles for the most part as the rendering pipeline is highly optimized for the hardware and there are no background tasks or other items eating CPU cycles.

The amount of ram is whatever for games as all textures that are being rendered are stored on the GPU. PS4 GPU has access to probably 6GB (I figured at least 2 will be used by other stuff) vs 4GB on the 680 (I think far more users have the 2GB version).

Plus you have no clue what the framerate is of the demo, for all you know it's running at 100FPS scaled down and you still get 75fps which is more than playable, especially since most console gamers are used to like 30fps.

Which is already why we saw a scale down of the previous tech demo, Elemental, in order to get it to run on the PS4:

As we can clearly see, the PC version features more particles effects than the PS4 version. Of course some might say that the PS4 version still features enough particles, however one of the things that really impressed us on the Elemental Tech Demo – back in 2012 – was the amount of its particles effects and the fact that it could easily handle them.

Lighting also seems to be better on the PC. Not only that, but pay attention to the Knights eyes. On the PC version, you can clearly see that his eyes are ‘burning’. That effect though is nowhere to be found on the PS4 version. Due to the lack of such feature, the Knight on the PS4 does not look as frightening as the one on the PC. As Reddit’s user ‘ForHomeUseOnly’ also notes, ‘there isn’t a shadowed area in the corner wall area by the door, and it looks like there isn’t any light bouncing going on, and missing shadowing in some areas.’

In addition specular highlights – or the shininess of the character - seem better on the PC. The PS4 version has very ‘plastic and blown out reflections‘. Furthermore, the Knight seems to be getting less indirect lighting on the PS4 version. As we can easily spot, there is some blue indirect lighting from the enviroment on the Knight’s armor on the PC tech demo, something that is missing on the PS4.

Textures also seem of a lower quality. This can be easily spotted on the Knight’s armor, the ice chunks and the door. Ah yes, the door looks really awful on the PS4 version of the Elemental demo. The PS4 version also lacks the DOF effect that was present on the PC version, though some might be glad that Epic Games did not use it. Smoke effects are also decreased to a minimum, something that can be easily spotted in the second comparison shot.

You can easily tell that the PS4 version is basically a downgrade from the PC version of Elemental. As a means of proof, we’ve included both tech demos below. We should also note that Elemental was running on a single GTX680 on the PC. We also know that Elemental was running at 1080p and 60fps on the PC. Epic Games has not revealed the resolution and the framerate of the PS4 version, though we expect it to be at 1080p and 30fps.

And this is 6-9 months before the console even launches.

And the CPU does matter even on a console, why does it magically cease to exist as an impediment on a console vs a PC game? Even Anandtech tweeted how disappointed he was with the CPU side.

Which is already why we saw a scale down of the previous tech demo, Elemental, in order to get it to run on the PS4:

And this is 6-9 months before the console even launches.

And the CPU does matter even on a console, why does it magically cease to exist as an impediment on a console vs a PC game? Even Anandtech tweeted how disappointed he was with the CPU side.

One is running D3D the other is OpenGL, there are bound to be differences in graphics between the two especially when it comes to lighting as the shaders are totally different. Also why would the textures be limited on PS4? It has nearly the same texture bandwidth as the GTX680 and has access way to more memory. Anyway, we don't even know how long Epic has had to optimize their engine for the PS4. AMD's SIMD architecture barely gets utilized properly now as a 7970 despite having significantly more shader performance than 680 performs similarly. Once these games are optimized to fill all those SIMDs the performance gap will close.

As for the CPU, it hardly matters on a PC either. Look at AMD vs Intel, AMD despite performing worse in pretty much everything matches Intel when the load is GPU bottlenecked. Which is going to be the case in pretty much everything next-gen. On a console it's even less, especially considering they are offloading more and more onto either specialized chips (like PS4's encoding unit or PS4's GPU based physics)

I'm also pretty sure that the engineers who have been designing CPUs and GPU's for the last 15 or so years know how properly strike a balance between the two, especially AMD who have been dominating in the APU area.

I mean obviously these consoles aren't going to be as good as PCs. But they aren't terrible and they are more than capable of running this demo at decent framerate. And because the hardware is so similar to that of a PC ports off the consoles should be less buggy and should have better performance. Hopefully they'll take the time it used to, to implement better control schemes for mouse and keyboard.

One is running D3D the other is OpenGL, there are bound to be differences in graphics between the two especially when it comes to lighting as the shaders are totally different. Also why would the textures be limited on PS4? It has nearly the same texture bandwidth as the GTX680 and has access way to more memory. Anyway, we don't even know how long Epic has had to optimize their engine for the PS4. AMD's SIMD architecture barely gets utilized properly now as a 7970 despite having significantly more shader performance than 680 performs similarly. Once these games are optimized to fill all those SIMDs the performance gap will close.

As for the CPU, it hardly matters on a PC either. Look at AMD vs Intel, AMD despite performing worse in pretty much everything matches Intel when the load is GPU bottlenecked. Which is going to be the case in pretty much everything next-gen. On a console it's even less, especially considering they are offloading more and more onto either specialized chips (like PS4's encoding unit or PS4's GPU based physics)

I'm also pretty sure that the engineers who have been designing CPUs and GPU's for the last 15 or so years know how properly strike a balance between the two, especially AMD who have been dominating in the APU area.

I mean obviously these consoles aren't going to be as good as PCs. But they aren't terrible and they are more than capable of running this demo at decent framerate. And because the hardware is so similar to that of a PC ports off the consoles should be less buggy and should have better performance. Hopefully they'll take the time it used to, to implement better control schemes for mouse and keyboard.

BS buddy is that why AMD CPU's can't keep up with there own GPU's , CPU matters alot , it feeds the GPU and dont think of bad console ports as an example either.

Well Jaguar will be a lot better then Bulldozer/Vishera architecture, also it won't have 2 shared threads per module, but each module with its own thread.. If Bulldozer had this apporach it would crush current SB/IB.

Well Jaguar will be a lot better then Bulldozer/Vishera architecture, also it won't have 2 shared threads per module, but each module with its own thread.. If Bulldozer had this apporach it would crush current SB/IB.

Yea Key word there , It Would... Where is it.....living in theory.
OMG if it had this and it did this ohh wait...It doesn't exist.

Well Jaguar will be a lot better then Bulldozer/Vishera architecture, also it won't have 2 shared threads per module, but each module with its own thread.. If Bulldozer had this apporach it would crush current SB/IB.

Jaguar is in the same league as Atom, Vishera would eat it alive. It's not even supposed to be in the same benchmark graph as Vishera or Ivy Bridge.

One is running D3D the other is OpenGL, there are bound to be differences in graphics between the two especially when it comes to lighting as the shaders are totally different. Also why would the textures be limited on PS4? It has nearly the same texture bandwidth as the GTX680 and has access way to more memory. Anyway, we don't even know how long Epic has had to optimize their engine for the PS4. AMD's SIMD architecture barely gets utilized properly now as a 7970 despite having significantly more shader performance than 680 performs similarly. Once these games are optimized to fill all those SIMDs the performance gap will close.

As for the CPU, it hardly matters on a PC either. Look at AMD vs Intel, AMD despite performing worse in pretty much everything matches Intel when the load is GPU bottlenecked. Which is going to be the case in pretty much everything next-gen. On a console it's even less, especially considering they are offloading more and more onto either specialized chips (like PS4's encoding unit or PS4's GPU based physics)

I'm also pretty sure that the engineers who have been designing CPUs and GPU's for the last 15 or so years know how properly strike a balance between the two, especially AMD who have been dominating in the APU area.

I mean obviously these consoles aren't going to be as good as PCs. But they aren't terrible and they are more than capable of running this demo at decent framerate. And because the hardware is so similar to that of a PC ports off the consoles should be less buggy and should have better performance. Hopefully they'll take the time it used to, to implement better control schemes for mouse and keyboard.

Again, I want to know where this myth that the CPU doesn't matter at high resolutions and graphic levels came from. It's been debunked so many times, it's almost criminal to keep repeating it.

Here's a bunch at 1080p (the same resolution this console is targeted at):

==========
==========

The problem is the console ports up till now have nearly always been like this:

But that's 100% a problem of the game itself not being properly coded by the devs. The games that are properly coded end up looking like the one's I quoted.

And now keep in mind that Jaguar is far weaker than all of the CPU's quoted on the list, even 8 cores of them wouldn't come close to many of them.